Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

[Spion]

Libya: first female British Typhoon pilot in action
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-female-British-Typhoon-pilot-in-action.html

So fucking what?

 

[Random]

From that link, good to see the Cypriot Communists trying to stay non-aligned.

President Demetris Christofias said that his government opposed any use of the British bases on the island to enforce the no-fly zone, but conceded it had no power to stop their involvement.

 

[weltweit]

So fucking what?

So, it is a first, that is what.

 

[Idaho]

I'm saying it is incapable of capitalist democracy, the type we have, because it doesn't have a stable capitalist class. Instead it has pyramids of patronage which are based on oil revenues, essentially what we would call corruption. I do think it's capable of more radical forms of democracy, however.

It's economy and politics are always going to be distorted by oil. But I think there is potential for that oil wealth to be nationalised allowing a low tax, high benefit state. I think with some work it could be a multi-party democracy. The problem is like that of all oil money states. The money is used to secure vested interests and the security mechanisms to protect those interests.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

So fucking what?

Because it is a triumph for sexual equality! Women can now bomb for Britain

 

[Idaho]

So fucking what?

Easy tiger. He's just posting a link.

 

[Random]

Easy tiger. He's just posting a link.

He's just saying "...anyway - look! kittens!"

 

[Random]

It's economy and politics are always going to be distorted by oil. But I think there is potential for that oil wealth to be nationalised allowing a low tax, high benefit state. I think with some work it could be a multi-party democracy. The problem is like that of all oil money states. The money is used to secure vested interests and the security mechanisms to protect those interests.

hillariously enough that is almost pretty much what the US and UK liberals thought could be done in Iraq. That "with some work" it could become a capitalist liberal democracy.

 

[Spion]

It's economy and politics are always going to be distorted by oil. But I think there is potential for that oil wealth to be nationalised allowing a low tax, high benefit state. I think with some work it could be a multi-party democracy. The problem is like that of all oil money states. The money is used to secure vested interests and the security mechanisms to protect those interests.

Libya already is a low tax, high benefit state. There aren't multiple parties because its society is fractured by the social divisions that are remnants of pre-capitalism, ie tribal structures. The strongman leader comes from an institution that stands to some extent above this and aims to hold it together, ie the army. Multiple political parties would threaten this order as they would tend to be tribally based. They could exist but there would be instability and in-fighting and there would always be a tendency towards a strong state power, see other countries like Pakistan etc. It's what usually happens in the ex-colonial world.

 

[Spion]

hillariously enough that is almost pretty much what the US and UK liberals thought could be done in Iraq. That "with some work" it could become a capitalist liberal democracy.

:thumbs up:

 

[Idaho]

hillariously enough that is almost pretty much what the US and UK liberals thought could be done in Iraq. That "with some work" it could become a capitalist liberal democracy.

Libya is an easier proposition than Iraq for a number of reasons:

- Smaller population
- Higher per capita GDP
- No openly hostile neighbours
- No *major* ethnic conflict
- No *major* religious conflict

 

[Idaho]

Libya already is a low tax, high benefit state. There aren't multiple parties because its society is fractured by the social divisions that are remnants of pre-capitalism, ie tribal structures. The strongman leader comes from an institution that stands to some extent above this and aims to hold it together, ie the army. Multiple political parties would threaten this order as they would tend to be tribally based. They could exist but there would be instability and in-fighting and there would always be a tendency towards a strong state power, see other countries like Pakistan etc. It's what usually happens in the ex-colonial world.

Perhaps. Although you may be overplaying the tribal angle. Remember that it's a country with a very young average age. In time old loyalities and such can be forgotten. They were usually based on economic ties and roles than have long since lapsed.

 

[Spion]

Libya is an easier proposition than Iraq for a number of reasons:

- Smaller population
- Higher per capita GDP
- No openly hostile neighbours
- No *major* ethnic conflict
- No *major* religious conflict

You could apply to be the Paul Bremer for Libya. There may be a job coming up

 

[Idaho]

You could apply to be the Paul Bremer for Libya. There may be a job coming up

Sign me up. 6 month tour, then a book deal, then a Non-exec chair for Haliburton and Carlyle group? Clover baby, clover.

 

[Random]

Perhaps. Although you may be overplaying the tribal angle. Remember that it's a country with a very young average age. In time old loyalities and such can be forgotten. They were usually based on economic ties and roles than have long since lapsed.

The young people of Libya will wecome us with open arms! And they're so religiously united and so few, this will be easy!

 

[Idaho]

The young people of Libya will wecome us with open arms! And they're so religiously united and so few, this will be easy!

You're talking down this invasion benevolent intervention on behalf of the rag-heads good oil growing peoples of Libya. Why do you hate freedom?

 

[Spion]

Perhaps. Although you may be overplaying the tribal angle.

I may be. But it's a matter of fact in the Libyan case as to its effect or not. Fact is tho, even in an ex-colonial country like Egypt, which lacks quite the same tribal hangovers, the tendency towards a strong armed forces leader is based on the same underlying lack of a well-developed capitalist class and society being riddled with patron-client relations.

 

[phildwyer]

Remember that it's a country with a very young average age. In time old loyalities and such can be forgotten.

Hahahahahahahaha.

 

[Crispy]

Hahahahahahahaha.

You don't think it's possible, or you don't think it's happening here?

 

[phildwyer]

You don't think it's possible, or you don't think it's happening here?

I find the contention that the young average age of the population may cause tribal loyalties to be forgotten to be laughably absurd.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Look this stuff about tribal loyalties. This is a vestige of the desert past of the land. Today 80% of the people live in cities not in tents up to their knees in sand and camel shit. Looking at the ten biggest cities and towns in Libya, by my calculation eight of them declared themselves for the revolution. This is an urban conflict not a throw-back to a primitive past

 

[Idaho]

I find the contention that the young average age of the population may cause tribal loyalties to be forgotten to be laughably absurd.

That's a compliment coming from someone as dim as you. These loyalties are not etheric forces motivating people for all time. They are the vestiges of old cultural, economic, political and ethnic ties.

200 years ago I would have known who on my street was a Catholic and perhaps avoided them because of it.

250 years ago 90% of Frenchmen couldn't speak French and identified themselves with their local region rather than the nation. 200 years ago, people across the pennisula now known as Italy, would have done the same.

 

[TruXta]

That's a compliment coming from someone as dim as you. These loyalties are not etheric forces motivating people for all time. They are the vestiges of old cultural, economic, political and ethnic ties.

200 years ago I would have known who on my street was a Catholic and perhaps avoided them because of it.

250 years ago 90% of Frenchmen couldn't speak French and identified themselves with their local region rather than the nation. 200 years ago, people across the pennisula now known as Italy, would have done the same.

Eh... while I don't necessarily disagree with your point, urbanisation per se does not equal the dissolution of tribal ties. Plenty cities around the world, old as new, are heavily segregated into ethnicities. It's not much of a leap of imagination that the same might hold in Libya, only on the level of tribes, which again is subordinate to the ethnic level (Arabs, Berbers, Touaregs).

In essence, what I'm asking is that you supply some evidence that tribalism is a weak force in the insurrection.

 

[Spion]

Eh... while I don't necessarily disagree with your point, urbanisation per se does not equal the dissolution of tribal ties. Plenty cities around the world, old as new, are heavily segregated into ethnicities. It's not much of a leap of imagination that the same might hold in Libya, only on the level of tribes, which again is subordinate to the ethnic level (Arabs, Berbers, Touaregs).

This.

Also that these ties are not just free-floating identities, retained or chosen at will, but are ways in which jobs, resources, etc are channelled. And if it's not tribe these patterns of patron-client exist in other forms in such countries - from army chiefs down through party bosses and neighbourhood strongmen.

 

[Idaho]

Eh... while I don't necessarily disagree with your point, urbanisation per se does not equal the dissolution of tribal ties. Plenty cities around the world, old as new, are heavily segregated into ethnicities. It's not much of a leap of imagination that the same might hold in Libya, only on the level of tribes, which again is subordinate to the ethnic level (Arabs, Berbers, Touaregs).

In essence, what I'm asking is that you supply some evidence that tribalism is a weak force in the insurrection.

I'm just speculating. I don't know how big a factor it is. As Spion says, it's a place where family/tribe connections may well have significant practical implications. If so, we don't know if these would prevail should Gaddafi be ousted.

 

[TruXta]

I'm just speculating. I don't know how big a factor it is. As Spion says, it's a place where family/tribe connections may well have significant practical implications. If so, we don't know if these would prevail should Gaddafi be ousted.

In fairness it was more the DivCon that was espousing a non-role for tribes.

 

[Streathamite]

Let's stick to Iraq. Before the invasion, you couldn't see that a likely result of such action was civil war?

sure,but by that stage the neo-cons had fallen for their own propaganda-hook,line and sinker

 

[weltweit]

Couple of recent links for you:

Libya Condemns 'Civilian Deaths' In Strikes
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo..._Casualties_In_Air_Strikes_In_Capital_Tripoli

The consensus on intervention in Libya has shattered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/23/libya-ceasefire-consensus-russia-china-india

 

[weltweit]

Libya Condemns 'Civilian Deaths' In Strikes
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo..._Casualties_In_Air_Strikes_In_Capital_Tripoli

omg I am embarrased I put that sky link up now......
I just saw the first of the comments on there:

People are going on about the involvement of the West being only related to the oil that Gaddafi controls, but I have read elsewhere that it is actually information that the USA wish to keep Gaddafi from spreading, such as proof that the 1969 moon landings were staged in the Libyan desert

 

[dylans]

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htm



Does not sound like regime change to me.

But does not sound like siding with the rebels either.

Of course it is. The resolution claims to be demanding a ceasefire while proposing various military measures to protect civilians. But the ceasefire demand doesn't apply to the rebels and it also makes clear that if the regime actually carries out a ceasefire the military measures will remain in place.

Now let's for arguments sake assume the regime obeys and carries out a ceasefire to the satisfaction of the International forces. The rebels are not bound by it and will continue to seek a military overthrow of Gaddafi and there is no question of the use of force against them. So the resolution in effect takes sides and aids the rebels to seek regime change.